On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:06 +1100, Dudley Mills wrote:
> US Patents 6,397,219 and 6,466,940 which relate to the insertion and
> extraction of contact, classification and geographic data into and
> from web pages are to be sold at auction 2008 April 1-2. With a
> priority date of 1997 February 21, the patents anticipated key aspects
> of the Semantic Web.
Dear Dudley,
I'm sorry if that offends you but my opinions are not patented yet, so I
can use them whenever I want.
You didn't anticipated anything, the concept of semantic data is a very
old concept, not to say ancient, you just filled a bloody patent to be
able to profit from public domain ideas before anyone could do it.
> Who gets to own the patents is now out of my hands. However, I’d like
> them to go to a good home if I can find one.
A "good one"? Nope, anyone that pays you $300.000 for each idea that you
didn't have! Algorithms are public domain by definition and shouldn't be
susceptible of patents.
First, your brain is not the only one to do such connections, any
reasonably advanced brain (even monkeys?) having the same problem you
had would probably come to the same set of solutions you found.
Second, filling patents doesn't mean the ideas were yours, only that you
were quick (and dirty) enough to patent first.
Third, patents are the sole expression of complete incompetence. If you
were minimally competent you would have built a start up, implemented
one of the ideas and got really rich by selling it to Google or
Microsoft, but that's too difficult, isn't it?
Fourth, do you have any idea of what W3C does for the Internet? I may be
wrong but I've never seen W3C selling patents or profiting from their
recommendations, so what's your point in selling patents here? Do you
expect W3C will buy some?
> If you know of anyone likely to be interested in these patents, would
> you be so kind as to let them know?
All my friends with millions to spare would be better off buying a house
in Monaco, I'm afraid.
--renato